Ranger Raptor Ford Performance Tune Before and After Results - Real World Numbers

[Narwhal Truck Toppers]

I decided to get the Pro Cal Ford Performance Tune installed this week. Here is a quick look at the performance changes.

Keep in mind I am at an altitude of around 5500ft and the density altitude was around 8k.

Launches could have been slightly improved, and the ECU had around a day and a half to relearn, hoping to see more improvement after 500 miles or so of driving.

I hope this provides some insight for people on the fence.

Sponsored

 

[AMGRAPTOR]

Thanks for taking the time to review. Im at sea level so I’m hoping with a good temp and DA I can break into the high 4s. Best stock pull I’ve seen using the drag is 5.37 using 87 octane.

 

[maxxvito]

Interesting. Hopefully it does get better. But if that’s the best it gets, I think I’ll save my money

 

[Quick]

Honestly, the outright performance isn't the value of this tune, IMO - it's the changes to drivability mostly due to the updates to the shift strategy and bump in torque down low. It's a far more enjoyable vehicle to drive now. It feels lighter/sprightly-er.

 

[Narwhal Truck Toppers]

Thanks for taking the time to review. I'm at sea level, so I’m hoping with a good temp and DA, I can break into the high 4s. Best stock pull I’ve seen using the drag is 5.37 using 87 octane.

Of course. You just might; it’s wild how much of a difference altitude makes on performance. What RPM are you launching from? I seemed to get better results around 2500RPM.

 

[wolf32v]

That camper not being flush is slowing it down also. If you had 93 octane you would gain more also.

 

[nappy]

Honestly, the outright performance isn't the value of this tune, IMO - it's the changes to drivability mostly due to the updates to the shift strategy and bump in torque down low. It's a far more enjoyable vehicle to drive now. It feels lighter/sprightly-er.

I was just mumbling a similar sentiment after my Ranger tune. I was on the freeway and noticed that runs so much smoother now, less engine braking, far better shift points and it always seems to be in the right gear now when you go to accelerate. It's got more power and you can feel it, but the smoothness at speed and as the tranny shifts is welcome.

 

[BDreason]

I thought the point of getting the tune was so you can tell people your Raptor has 455hp?

Anyone have an update for when California is going to approve it?

 

[Takeo]

Here is the average dragy results im getting post tune.

 

[Goldylox22]

I thought the point of getting the tune was so you can tell people your Raptor has 455hp?

Anyone have an update for when California is going to approve it?

I’ve got the same California problem but sounds like if you can find someone to install (or do it yourself accepting the risks) then no worries about smog for 8 years past model year

 

[AlloyPony]

Those are impressive stats. I have a '13 Mustang GT and it would have its hands full in a drag race with a tuned Ranger Raptor.

 

[Deleted member 9086]

That’s the problem with higher altitudes. Less air density, near zero ambient humidity, and AFR’s to far on the rich side. The FPT is a bit mild and still doesn’t address to rich AFR’s in the mid to higher rpm ranges.

Additionally, the FPT doesn’t address the issue with the TB opening to only 95% @ WOT. It never opens 100% at WOT and at 5700- 6000 rpms actually reduces to 93% at WOT. All this is in line with current required emission standards.

I’m at 6100+ and 91 octane barely cuts it. No one shouldn’t attempt to run anything less than 91 at or above 5000 vertical feet in this truck with this tune. The minimum needs to be 93 or higher for better combustion along with a higher CFM flowing intake to bring it into a consistent 5.5 or less second 0-60.

Try utilizing a drop-in K & N like I have installed currently. I’m also adding water injection (upstream) of the FMIC shortly, (no not WMI), which will help compression at this altitude, along with some VP 101 octane fuel.

The addition of a TB spacer and possibly a manifold spacers will provide more air charge volume as well. Hopefully, I can get Boomba Racing to develop them. They have one for the 2.7 at the moment.

With these changes I’m pretty certain of consistent low 5’s, to possible high 4’s at my altitude. We’ll see soon enough.???

 

[ducktapeonmydesk]

That’s the problem with higher altitudes. Less air density, near zero ambient humidity, and AFR’s to far on the rich side. The FPT is a bit mild and still doesn’t address to rich AFR’s in the mid to higher rpm ranges.

Additionally, the FPT doesn’t address the issue with the TB opening to only 95% @ WOT. It never opens 100% at WOT and at 5700- 6000 rpms actually reduces to 93% at WOT. All this is in line with current required emission standards.

I’m at 6100+ and 91 octane barely cuts it. You really can’t and shouldn’t attempt to run anything less than 91 at or above 5000 vertical feet. Really Needs minimum 93 or higher for better combustion and a higher CFM flowing intake to bring it into a consistent 5.5 second 0-60.

Try utilizing a drop-in K & N like I have installed currently. I’m also adding water injection (upstream) of the FMIC shortly, (no not WMI), which will help compression at this altitude, along with some VP 101 octane fuel.

The addition of a TB spacer and possibly a manifold spacers will provide more air charge volume as well. Hopefully, I can get Boomba Racing to develop them. They have one for the 2.7 at the moment.

With these changes I’m pretty certain of consistent low 5’s, to possible high 4’s at my altitude. We’ll see soon enough.???

You have it backwards. The higher the altitude, the lower the octane you can run (in older vehicles). In newer ones, you shouldn't use lower than specified by the manufacturer. But, broadly speaking, the higher the altitude, the thinner the air, and, thus, the lower the octane you can run before running into knock.

https://tap.fremontmotors.com/is-85-octane-ok-to-use-at-altitude/

 

[Deleted member 9086]

You have it backwards. The higher the altitude, the lower the octane you can run (in older vehicles). In newer ones, you shouldn't use lower than specified by the manufacturer. But, broadly speaking, the higher the altitude, the thinner the air, and, thus, the lower the octane you can run before running into knock.

https://tap.fremontmotors.com/is-85-octane-ok-to-use-at-altitude/

That’s 100% incorrect…..you run 87 or below here at 6100+ feet and above, you’re going to have; valve clatter, knock and possibly worse in this truck. This truck even from the factory, recommends 91 as a minimum…….. You tune it, it’s not a recommendation but a requirement even from FP.

To be frank, that’s about the most inconclusive, non-factual, federal, misinformation, I’ve read to date. Did you article and check the references used?

GM fuel specialist Bill Studzinski said, “We do not endorse the use of 85 octane or lower”.

The EPA says on their website, “The sale of 85 octane fuel was originally allowed in high-elevation regions—where the barometric pressure is lower—because it was cheaper and because most carbureted engines tolerated it fairly well. This is not true for modern gasoline engines. So, unless you have an older vehicle with a carbureted engine, you should use the manufacturer-recommended fuel for your vehicle, even where 85 octane fuel is available”[/QUOTE]. Bottomline, Ford recommends 91 and Ford Performance requires it as a minimum.???

 

[yelnoc2]

Those are impressive stats. I have a '13 Mustang GT and it would have its hands full in a drag race with a tuned Ranger Raptor.

My old '02 Mustang GT w/the 4.6L couldn't begin to keep up with mine even before the tune.

Sponsored